Tag: Sarah Palin

This weekend, 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate spoke at a gathering of the National Rifle Association. During her talk she stated, “If I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.” That line was met with considerable applause from the crowd.

Although I have a lot of areas of disagreement with Sarah Palin’s former running mate, Senator John McCain of Arizona, one position that I did appreciate was his steadfast opposition to torture. Having served in Vietnam, we have been told that he experienced horrible treatment at the hands of his captors and thus knows firsthand of these loathsome practices. As such, McCain believes that America should not embrace the inhuman tactics of torture. Regrettably, it seems that Sarah Palin thinks otherwise.

Palin’s viewpoint seems to harken back to Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who famously declared that anyone suspected of being a terrorist, whether proven or not, should not be afforded due process or legal protection under either the U.S. Constitution or international law.

Not only are Palin’s comments on Saturday disturbing from the perspective of constitutional liberty and human rights, they also indicate a troubling theology.

Does she believe that we ought to forcibly baptize non-Christians? Are her thoughts a nod to the idea of conversion by the sword, the same practice that many on the right condemn some Muslims for enacting on their non-Muslim neighbors?

And shouldn’t most Christians be offended by the idea of comparing baptism, which many of us believe holds deep theological significance, to the loathsome torture of waterboarding? Do we honestly believe that baptism ought to be held up in the same light of simulated drowning?

Therefore, as they are an affront to both civil liberties and to Christianity, Sarah Palin’s comments regarding baptism by waterboarding must be completely and utterly repudiated.

Sorry for little pause in updates. My personal circumstances are changing including a potential move, though I should still be in the 26th district. But on to the topic at hand…

Limited government conservative and establishment Republicans have long butted heads and 2010 is no exception. For starters, you can look south to Florida for The Rubio/Crist feud. How about blowback against the maverick John McCain in his primary fight in Arizona? We in the limited government camp are not alone. The tea party movement itself rose to tell not only the federal government, but also the Republican Party, that to quote the movie Network, we are “as mad as hell and not going to take this anymore! Things have got to change!” Now we don’t merely want change for changes’ sake. We have seen the supposed hope and change that President Obama offers, and now our future is clouded and uncertain. We need a new and better direction. Neither citizens nor corporations should endlessly suckle at the teat of the government, merely crying for bread and circuses. That crooked road doesn’t lead to freedom and prosperity, but to shackles and serfdom. To reclaim our nation we need a path paved with the promises of liberty and personal responsibility, not welfare and bailouts.

This year, I believe no battle is more important in war for the heart and soul of the GOP than in Kentucky. For the side of the limited government crowd we have Rand Paul, son of Texas Representative and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul. For the side of the establishment, we have Trey Grayson, the Secretary of State of Kentucky. With the primary less than two weeks away, politicians and political leaders from both wings of the Republican Party have taken notice and have come out swinging with endorsements. In Grayson’s column, we have Senate Minority Leader and Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, Dick Cheney, Rick Santorum, and Rudy Giuliani. Paul’s supporters include Senator Jim DeMint (SC), Steve Forbes, Dr. James Dobson, and Sarah Palin. These endorsements alone should give you some indication of the quality of the two men.

On many issues both candidates share the same (or nearly the same) views: abortion, taxes, and spending. Therefore, I don’t believe it would be fair to say that either candidate is not conservative. What makes Paul a better choice, in my mind, is his limited government mindset. I think Erick Erickson of Red State sums up my thoughts pretty well. “The problem with Republicans in Congress is that they lost their way. They were willing to do things they otherwise would oppose because George Bush told them to. And they have been willing ever since to go along with strategies that were poll tested and mother approved because that is what the leadership wanted and told them to do.” He goes on to add, “I want men and women of high moral character who are men and women of conservative principle, not of party.

When of party, politicians think too often of saving themselves, not the country. For too long the Republicans have invested in solid party guys who advance the party’s agenda, but not conservatism and certainly not smaller government.”

Amen Mr. Erickson. We need leaders who are not afraid to actually lead.

Like his father, Rand Paul is against bailouts of all kinds, the Federal Reserve, and even opposes the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq. Although such a line of thinking is not popular with the establishment Republicans and may even be considered radical, I believe that this path is the only method to save the Republican Party and, more importantly, our nation as a whole.

Although I do not live in Kentucky, I wholeheartedly endorse and support Rand Paul. Neither side will be able to claim ultimate victory as a result of this primary, but a win for Paul will likely create aftershocks felt across the land. Sooner or later in our own cities, counties, and states, both you and I will have the opportunity to choose between the status quo and a limited, constitutional government. On that day, will you have the courage to take a stand?

Just a few hours ago, I received a handful of pictures and a brief video from the Sarah Palin book signing earlier this month. Although I wasn’t able to attend myself, it looks as quite a few folks braved the rainy/snowy weather to meet the former Governor. Can’t really think of anything else to add. If any of you all were there, feel free to provide any additional details. I hope you all enjoy.

Just got back from The RPV Advance and wanted to share some info with you. Today, (Saturday) Sarah Palin will be in Fairfax to sign copies of her new book “Going Rogue”.

The details:

Where: BJ’s Wholesale Club

13053 Fair Lakes Shopping Center
Fairfax, VA 22033

When: 11:00 AM – 2:00 PM

Further details: “The book signing will be done on a first come first serve basis. Paid members will be allowed two books signed per membership card.” So if you happen to be in the Fairfax area later today, head on over and say hello.

Although I’ll be down in Williamsburg until tomorrow evening, hopefully I’ll have some good video of the event to share with you all when I get back.

A friend recently asked me why I hadn’t written about Sarah Palin’s resignation as Governor of Alaska. While I answer that question, let me share with you a recent comic by Tatsuya Ishida. Certainly her resignation came as quite a shock. After all, how often, besides a scandal or the threat of impeachment, does a public official resign? A good number of us on the right fell in love with Palin when she ran for Vice President, supporting McCain’s bid for the presidency not out of any burning desire to see McCain actually elected, but rather based upon the future hopes of a more conservative Palin administration in 2012. Although I thought Palin to be a good pick, it quickly became apparent that the single choice alone was insufficient to salvage the campaign. Despite what some pundits thought, I was fairly convinced that Palin would not be the Republican nominee in 2012. Now, with her resignation looming, I am certain of it.

How many vice presidential nominees who lost the election went on to become president? Sure, we’ve had one vice president lose an election and later become president, that being Nixon. But vice presidential nominees? In recent memory Bob Dole tried in 1996 and lost. Only Franklin Roosevelt (nominee in 1920 with James Cox) went on to win in 1932 (unless you count James K. Polk in 1840, which you shouldn’t in my opinion given that he was not the official nominee).

Furthermore, resigning as Governor of Alaska makes her further irrelevant. If she couldn’t even finish her term as Governor, what makes you think that she’d be a good choice for President. What skeletons are in her closet? Why couldn’t she finish out her term? Is 2010 just too far away?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but she is not the conservative leader we need right now. Sure, she is conservative, but there are a considerable number of presidential hopefuls who are more conservative, more constitutionally minded, and more experienced. Therefore, unless something dramatic happens between now and the primaries, Sarah Palin will not be the nominee in 2012. So to answer the question of why did I not comment on Governor Palin before now, it is for the simple fact that her political future and clout will likely vanish as quickly as a gust of wind. I suppose you could say that she’s now palin’ in comparison.

Well it is time for me to give my thoughts on the Presidential Race. As you know, I have been an avid supporter of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. As you might also know, a couple of days ago Ron Paul gave a speech arguing that the public should not support either Republican John McCain nor Democrat Barack Obama. He is right (well…sort of). Conservatives, like myself, have been, at best, lukewarm about the candidacy of Senator McCain. Few, if any of us honestly believe that he is a conservative. Instead he embraces many big government solutions, which are unacceptable philosophically or constitutionally. When endorsing John McCain RPV Chairman Jeff Frederick called him a maverick. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman? I don’t want a maverick, I don’t want a liberal, and I don’t want a moderate! I want a constitutional conservative. A number of local conservatives have recently thrown their support to McCain as a result of his choice for vice-president, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. For example, at our local city/county GOP gathering, the county chairman stated that although he knew that many of us did not care for McCain, we should vote for him in 2008 so that we can vote for Palin in 2012 or 2016. It is a sad reflection that more people are excited about Palin than McCain. I have never voted for a presidential candidate based solely upon his vice presidential choice. From what I’ve learned thus far, although I think Palin would be an acceptable conservative, John McCain is not. Also, McCain is running for president, Palin is not. The vice presidency is worth very little. Therefore, as a principled conservative, I must reject the McCain/Palin ticket. I highly recommend listening to Jack Hunter’s commentary on the subject of McCain/Palin found here.

But Joshua, you might say, John McCain is a conservative. He is solidly pro-life and is against pork barrel spending. Although both are conservative stances, those viewpoints alone do not make him a conservative. Need proof? Consider his position on illegal immigration and his support for amnesty. How about his support for big government solutions in “solving” global warming? Then there is the whole McCain/Feingold issue. Do you honestly believe that this bill does not violate the 1st Amendment? Remember that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts and supports the death tax. He also advocates a very interventionist foreign policy. It amazes me greatly that so many so called conservatives derided Bill Clinton’s efforts to be the world policeman and nation builder but so readily embraced the exact same policies under our current Republican administration. You should expect more war and nation building under a McCain presidency. Oh goody! For these reasons and others, one can see that McCain does have conservative tendencies, but is far from a conservative.

When it comes to comparing John McCain to Obama, some conservatives argue that we should vote for John McCain because he is the lesser of two evils. If you buy this line, you must accept the fatal flaw in this line of thinking, which is that voting for McCain is still evil, just not as much. I’ll choose no evil, thank you very much. Others say that we should vote for Obama in order to teach the GOP the lesson that they cannot nominate non-conservatives and hope to win. Although I don’t want liberal Republicans, I cannot support liberal Democrats either. Liberal under either party is still liberal. Another option is to stay home and not vote, but I believe that to not vote is a failure of one’s civic duty. What’s a conservative to do?

As for myself, I plan to vote for a third party candidate. Naysayers will claim that voting third party is throwing your vote away, but it is far better to support a cause with which you agree even though it will almost certainly lose than to support a winning cause you despise. No doubt some fellow Republicans will brand me a traitor, but principles are far more important than party. After all, without principles what is the point of the party? My line of thinking is far closer to the stated goals of the Republican Party than Senator McCain’s. Besides, with two prior exceptions, I have always voted Republican. These two variations occurred when Republican candidates betrayed or forgot about their conservative constituents, the 2002 Senate Race (Warner) and the 2004 Presidential race (Bush). In both cases I did not so much vote for another candidate, but rather against the Republican one. I should mention that I did not vote for either of the two Democrats (Warner or Kerry), as I felt they were not worthy of my vote. Maybe one day I’ll find a conservative Democrat running against a liberal Republican. Like they have in some states, if they offered a “none of the above” option, it would get my support.

If you saw the interview yesterday, Ron Paul mentioned that Americans should vote for a candidate who supports four key principles. These principles are ending interventionism and militarism in foreign policy, restoring privacy in part through getting rid of the Patriot Act, eliminating the national debt, and abolishing the Federal Reserve. Therefore, he could realistically encourage voters to vote for Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), Cynthia McKinney (Green), or Ralph Nader (Independent). Ron Paul is only partially right here. Although they all apparently endorse these principles, I could not in good conscious support either McKinney or Nader. Until and unless these two embrace the ideals of the 10th Amendment and a limited federal government, they are as unacceptable as McCain and Obama. Instead, they support proposals like reparations and national health insurance. Therefore, the true choice for conservatives is between Barr and Baldwin.

I wish that I could support the Republican ticket this year, I really do. To stand in opposition puts me at odds with a number of friends and associates. You see those McCain signs that say “country first”, but it misses the greater issue. Without putting principles first, neither country nor party holds nearly the same worth. I am a conservative first and also a Republican as long as they hold the same values that I cherish. Let us hope that the party nominates a solid conservative in 2012. When they do, I’ll be the first to sing the praises. Until that day, we must not allow ourselves to be taken for granted any longer.